Esukpalli Nagaraju vs. The State Of Ap

Facts

The petitioner, Esukapalli Nagaraju, a contractor, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the respondents' failure to pay admitted bills for work executed under two agreements: Agreement No. 67/2024-25 for Rs. 16,92,142/- and GST, and Agreement No. 68/2024-25 for Rs. 13,83,957/-, totaling Rs. 30,76,099/- plus GST and other charges. The petitioner contended that the work was completed and measured, but payment was withheld. The respondents, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, submitted written instructions from the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, stating there was no dispute regarding the work's execution. However, the bill was not uploaded due to a lack of budget, and the bill had not yet reached the Division office for processing.

Held

The Court held that the Writ Petition is maintainable because the amount payable is admitted and undisputed. Citing the Supreme Court case of M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors V. Chief General Manager & Ors, the Court noted that non-payment of admitted dues can be considered an arbitrary action and a writ petition may lie for claiming such dues, especially when no disputed questions of fact requiring formal evidence arise. Given that there was no dispute regarding the work executed by the petitioner and the amount payable, and in light of the submissions from the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, the respondent authorities were directed to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted bills for the execution of work is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus is maintainable for the payment of admitted dues, even if there is an alternative remedy, as contended by the petitioner, citing M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors V. Chief General Manager & Ors? The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to pay admitted dues for completed work was illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights. The petitioner sought a direction to release the admitted amount. The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, admitted that there was no dispute regarding the work's execution but cited a lack of budget and pending processing for the non-payment. The respondents did not explicitly argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy, but their submission indicated procedural delays rather than a dispute on the merits of the claim.